ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000246/SG/13113
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000246/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Maneesh Agnihotri,
Qt.No.6, Type lV, EPF Colony,
Shyam Bagh, Umrred Road,
Nagpur - 440024.
Respondent : Mrs. Madhu Sham
PIO & Dy. Secretary,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhavan, GPO Complex,
Block-A, I.N.A., New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 07/01/2009
Reply of the PIO : 06/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 25/02/2010
FAA order : 20/03/2009
Second appeal received on : 03/09/2011
Information sought in the RTI Application :
i) Action taken on my letter regarding whistleblower-protection reg(copy enclosed)
ii) Copy of comments/ reply submitted by CVO of EPFO
iii) Copy of any direction/order issued by CVC in this regard.
Reply of the PIO:
(a)The appellant is informed that his representation regarding protection to “whistleblower” was
forwarded to CVO, EPFO and the Commission decided not to interfere in the matter further as the same
was under investigation ; and (b) the copy of the CVO, EPFO’s reply to the Commission was denied
under Sec8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for First appeal:
That the application of Section 8(1)(g) RTI Act 2005 is wrong and liable to be rejected. As per section
8(1)(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life of physical safety of any person or
identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
purposes. Neither of the two reasons is considered. First reason is not mentioned at all and for the second
one I already requested that the information if given by editing the name of person is acceptable to me.
Information has been denied.
FAA order:
As a final view in the matter had not been taken by the Administrative Authority concerned, the CPIO’s
decision to deny the information under Sec 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was correct. I, therefore uphold the
decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for Second appeal:
The information sought for has not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Maneesh Agnihotri on video conference from NIC-Nagpur Studio;
Respondent: Mrs. Madhu Sham, PIO & Dy. Secretary;
The respondent states that information regarding query-1 has been provided. But at the time when
RTI application was made investigation was incomplete and the role of the appellant was also being
inquired into, hence information was not provided claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h). The PIO
states that the investigation is over and is directed to send the information about query-2 to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the information on query-2 as per available records to
the Appellant before 10 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (JK)